Peter:
This was a very informative and well written response. Thank you for
sending it!
Curt
From: "PETER DAVIS" <paddymck@peoplepc.com>
To: <healeys@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:45 AM
Subject: Completing my 100/4 flywheel correspondence
> E-mails I sent yesterday weren't getting through and I noticed Bob
Spidel's having the same problem this morning.
>
> I had quoted my standard 100M flywheel weight at a massive 43lb, close to
the BCS catalog figure of 45lb, compared to the six cylinder at 30lb. Gary
Fuqua said he had one from a 100/4 that he thought was stock but only
weighed 34lb. My original is over 1.25in thick over most of the area with a
large chamfered overhang outside the clutch area. I think the high weight
is a legacy from it's truck and taxi background.
>
> What I did for weight saving was fit what I was told is a 100/6 flywheel
at 26lb, which bolts straight on, and works with the original 100/4 clutch
assembly and release bearing. The only mod is to get two more accurate
dowel holes added to the clutch cover, as the 100/4 is two at 180deg and the
100/6 is three at 120deg but on the same circle diameter. You could also
move the dowel (high school trigonometry with compasses and a ruler). Ring
gear is the same part number.
>
> You can't lose torque with a lighter flywheel but the reduced stored
rotational energy could effect smoothness at low speed and idle. I have
other mods in my engine, but it still idles quite well at 800rpm and pulls
like a train from low speed, thanks to the long stroke and torque, with
really quick throttle response changing up or down because of the smaller
inertia in the flywheel.
>
> regards,
>
> Peter Davis
|